Inequality slows down progress, people approve

[zanthia]

@Radivis

The forces creating economic inequality and slowing down progress are essentially the same. Or in other words: Inequality slows down progress.

yes, the forces of capitalism.

@Radivis

People have interests directed towards a world that is as stable, predictable, and static as possible.

i think, that depends. people are curious and greedy for news ( see the german expression “neugierig”) and don´t want to be bored. on the one hand. on the other hand you are probably right. one pro- argument you can find in my post here:
https://transforum.fractalfuture.net/t/indefinite-lifespans-might-halt-progress-what-can-we-do-to-change-that/727/4
but i don´t believe that change per se is a thing people want to avoid. there are many deliberations out of fear and distrust:

• “will the change be progress or improvement for the worse?”
• scepticism concerning capitalism: “will they betray me and only the big bosses profit and i have to suffer ( like i experienced so often in my life)”
• much progress, people experienced recently, caused personal suffering: automation led to losses of income and jobs and to existential fear

…and maybe many more. but i think that convincing improvements (like electricity and telephones) would not be rejected.

@Radivis

Therefore the economic elites act in those lower interests of everyone to keep the world as static as possible!

i don´t believe that. the “economic elites” only act in their own interests. and if it is progress ( what the economic elites want ) than we will have it, not matter if we like it or not. and if it is stagnation ( what they want ) then we have a hard time to fight for progress.

@Radivis

Also, since Piketty released his seminal book Capital in the 21st century, we should all know that economic inequality is increasing by default.

we should know this since karl marx released his book with the same title

Das Kapital

@Radivis

People choose inequality, because it slows down change

maybe, but “choose” implies conscious voluntariness. is that really the case? most of the people believe in a strange kind of fairness. when they work hard, they will be payed good and if they suffer from poverty they convince themselves that it was only their fault. they could have worked harder, spent their money wiser and so on… and this strange kind of logic is more unconscious and more involuntary than “choose” and only helps for one purpose: it feels much better to believe that you have the power over your life. ( although the idea that you have to work hard to make a living is strange enough, the idea that it is your fault to belong to the real big amount of persons who are suffering from shortage, is much more stranger ) a thought like : “this whole system of accumulation really fucked up my life, betrayed me, exploited me…and i alone have no power to change that” would be much more uncomfortable but much more progress. maybe this is the cause why marx analysis is no common knowledge: it does not feel good to admit that as a little worker you will always be the one who bleeds to make the rich richer.